Let's face it. Photography is not an inexpensive hobby. Not only is there an initial cost, there's ongoing purchase of supplies and equipment.

Any serious hobby will cost good money and photography isn't the only one. One could easily spend just as much doing a lot of other things, and sometimes quite a bit more. I stopped considering the monetary cost of hobbies in absolute terms years ago. What I think now is, am I getting the enjoyment out of the expense I incur? If the answer is yes, then I happily spend the money. If not, cut back or discontinue altogether. I'd rather enjoy what I make and enjoy my leisure pursuit.

As to film being expensive, I really don't think so.

Film equipment is so cheap now that one can get a top pro level gear for nothing or close to nothing. Have you ever seen the cost of the latest digital gear, including bodies, printers, paper, and let's not forget ink cartridges? It's amazingly expensive. I got pro level bodies for film and backup and backup of backup.... for less than $600.... try doing THAT with pro level digital gear.... Also my "printer" (enlarger) was $40.... and I got a backup, and backup of a backup.... Let's try that with Epson..... Film, paper, chems... yeah, it costs money but so as inkjet paper and ink.

I'm sure this is highly dependent upon individuals but I tend to shoot less frames with film but I end up with more images I like.

Just to put things in prospective on my view on film, I use film because I like the result I get. I don't even care if film is technically superior in absolute technical sense. I like the organic look. I've now settled into B&W with film and color with digital pattern. I shoot mostly B&W and process it myself.

I haven't needed to replace or update any part of my camera and darkroom set up in the entire span of decades I have had them. My negatives never get obliterated by a crash or need to be migrated to new media. It costs me a buck including paper to make a stunning and archival 11x14 print. My enlargers and contact frames dont clog up. I dont have to go to the office supply store and get bent over every two weeks. These days my prints are unique and stand out against the beige of the masses. My eyes dont go blurry. My butt does not continually expand in an office chair. Im not subject to the endless hype and marketing of the next big thing that will make me a real photographer. I spend my time growing instead of keeping up. Apples to apples I think I'm way ahead. Ymmv.

"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

One of my prime shooting times is when it is dark, out on the street. I routinely use ISO3200 and f/2 or f/1.4 lenses in the digital world. My GA645 certainly does not have ISO3200, nor does it have an F2 lens. I can't shoot outside at night with this camera, without radically changing my habits.

Sure it has ISO 3200; Tri-X can be pushed there with nice results, especially in medium format, and Delta 3200 is intended for the job. I guess you're stuck with f/4 with that camera, but 3200 at f/4 doesn't seem prohibitive for a lot of nighttime street shooting. I can't speak to Shanghai in any serious way (I assume you're not doing your street shooting on the Bund, where there should be enough light for anything), but I've done some nighttime handheld street shooting in various cities including Xi'an at comparable exposure values.

That's a nifty-looking camera. I'd never known much about the Fuji 645 cameras and you inspired me to go look up the GA645, and now I've got GAS. Thanks a lot. :-)

-NT

Nathan Tenny
San Diego, CA, USA

The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

I wonder, if, just a bit, the fading of these low-cost (and maybe cheaply and improperly fixed?) photos people used to hold dear helped spark the near-hatred of film-based imaging that lead to the digital revolution.

I doubt that. If anything, impermanence of early digitally-produced consumer photographs has posed a significant problem for people. No, what brought about the digital revolution is speed, and BLS (Blinky Light Syndrome, as in, "Oooooh, look at all of the blinky lights! Neat!"). With digital you get an image faster than a Polaroid can develop, and then you can send it to all of your friends as fast as email and the web can deliver it. As we've found out, quality comes in second to convenience, and basically people don't want to remember the past, even though they say they do.

I'm about $1k into it and have an almost complete 35mm system with 3 bodies, a great 6x6 system, a skeleton studio and a LOT of high class darkroom equipment. Heading on into retirement this should provide endless hours of entertainment. How much digital would that money buy? How much golf?

“You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt

Hope you get this all through customs should you ever decide to travel or relocate.

PE

The skeleton studio? That stays strictly in the closet.

“You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt